Dynamics of Growth Hormone Responsiveness to Growth Hormone Releasing Factor in Aging Rats: Peripheral and Central Influences
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The in vivo and in vitro dynamics of somatotroph responsiveness to rGRF(l-29) NH<sub>2</sub> (rat growth hormone releasing factor) were evaluated in 2-, 4-, 8-, 12-, and 20-month-old male rats. In vivo, using pentobarbital-anesthetized animals, we observed that the rGH (rat growth hormone) responsiveness to 0.4 and 1.6 µg/kg rGRF started to decline at the higher dose in 12-month-old rats and was completely blunted at both rGRF doses in 20-month-old animals. In vitro, using freshly dispersed perifused pituitary cells, we also documented a decrease of rGRF-induced rGH secretion in 12- and 20-month-old rats. Moreover, as the animals aged, the rGRF-induced rGH secretion was differentially affected by the inhibiting action of somatostatin (p < 0.001), suggesting a loss of pituitary sensitivity to somatostatin in the presence of a high concentration of rGRF. The pituitary rGH content increased until rats reached 12 months of age, but was diminished in 20-month-old rats. In contrast, the pituitary somatostatin content increased twofold in 20-month-old rats as compared with younger rats. The hypothalamic somatostatin content was highest in 8-month-old rats and only slightly diminished in 20-month-old animals. Finally, plasma insulin-like growth factor I concentrations were highest in 8-month-old rats and lowest in 20-month-old animals. Altogether, these results indicate that the physiological loss of somatotroph responsiveness associated with the process of aging starts around 12 months of age. Our data also suggest that sequential rises and falls of GH, somatostatin, and insulin-like growth factor I concentrations along the hypothalamo-pituitary-liver axis that occur from 8 to 20 months of age could contribute to the phenomenon. Finally, the significant accumulation of somatostatin-like immunoreactivity in the pituitary may be considered as an aggravating factor.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".